The Nightjet: A Big Bet on Train Travelers Who Take It Slow - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/overnight-train-austria.html <comment><USER3> When interning in Germany in college, I bought a Eurail pass. I would often take a night train somewhere on a weekend trip just so I could avoid paying for a hotel. Leave Friday early afternoon, go visit somewhere a couple hours away, then get on an overnight train somewhere, spend Saturday in another city, another overnight train, Sunday someplace, and Sunday overnight train back to work and shower at work before starting.

Was very inexpensive and more than tolerable for the money saved while almost broke.

<comment><USER4> What did you do the rest of the week?

<comment><USER3> Worked, usually. Was working on vision system for autonomous cars (in our case, an RV sized "bus" because of the size of the computing gear) for Daimler-Benz Research as part of Prometheus.

<comment><USER4> That 'bus' still has its own page:

[https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/The-P...](https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/The- PROMETHEUS-project-launched-in-1986-Pioneering-autonomous- driving.xhtml?oid=13744534)

That's a supercool job, I was just wondering how you slept, hopefully not under your desk.

<comment><USER3> Oh, sorry I didn't get that. We had company dorms in Bad Cannstatt.

Yes; that was the bus. My computer system would often be driving the green monitor visible on the right side of the instrument cluster while testing. (That shot is just a camera image, sadly.)

Network of Inmos transputers, running Occam. I'd never heard of Occam or message passing or done parallel programming when I got on the plane and within a few weeks, I was pretty up to speed (thanks to good mentorship).

[https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/picture....](https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/picture.xhtml?oid=7408570)

<comment><USER4> Very nice, and super nice of MB too to keep this documented. I hope you're working on something at least as interesting at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having lived in several European countries, I would say that ÖBB offers some of the best services anywhere in Europe. In addition to those night services, they are also frontrunners in other highly innovative lines of business, for example train services that allow you to take a bike or a car to solve last- mile mobility problems etc.

That said: ÖBB gets € 700 million per year in subsidies from the Austrian taxpayer in addition to loans guaranteed by the taxpayer etc [1] some politicians use the number € 4.7 billion per year if you some up all the different modes of wealth-transfer (although that number is contested [2]). To put this in context for a very small country: It's a similar order of magnitude as all of the taxpayer-funded science funding in Austria [3]

[1] [https://konzern.oebb.at/de/ueber-den- konzern/fakten/subventi...](https://konzern.oebb.at/de/ueber-den- konzern/fakten/subventionen) [2] [https://konzern.oebb.at/de/ueber-den- konzern/fakten/steuerge...](https://konzern.oebb.at/de/ueber-den- konzern/fakten/steuergelder) [3] [https://investinaustria.at/de/forschung- entwicklung/forschun...](https://investinaustria.at/de/forschung- entwicklung/forschungsfoerderungen.php)

<comment><USER6> Yep... unfortunately their tickets tend to be pretty expensive. A sleeper bed in a 3-bed compartment is between 110-140EUR one-way for the itinerary I usually travel. In comparison, I usually manage to get return airline tickets for about 150-200EUR for the same destination, which makes the train a very expensive option :/

<comment><USER7> For trips within Austria, you can save up to 50% with a Vorteilscard (66€/year): [https://www.oebb.at/en/tickets- kundenkarten/kundenkarten/vor...](https://www.oebb.at/en/tickets- kundenkarten/kundenkarten/vorteilscard.html)

I bought the card last year and it's paid for itself with just a few trips into Vienna and back (I'm in Tirol).

<comment><USER5> True: The customer loyalty card is a very common screw-over ( _ahem_ price differentiation tactic) to make tourists pay more than domestic/regular customers. It's done by most railway companies in most countries though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I took a night train once in Japan, which while it was an interesting experience and I'm glad that I did it, it was rather hard to actually sleep. You can't get around the fact that you're constantly being shunted back and forth. It's also noisy because of the contact with the rails, and the noise is irregular unlike the noisy but regular sound of air and turbines on a plane.

Edit: I believe it was this service, now discontinued: [https://jprail.com/trains/sort-by-type/overnight- trains/over...](https://jprail.com/trains/sort-by-type/overnight- trains/overnight-express-train-hokutosei.html)

<comment><USER9> Interesting; I find that a lot of people prefer the rocking of a train to the continuous whine of plane engines when trying to sleep…

<comment><USER10> The "rocking" only occurs as the train is moving steadily across open country. An overnight train between cities, a slow train, will be stopping at stations and constantly adjusting its speed for various rail situations. It may be even be adding or removing cars. The resulting motion isn't akin to the steady repetitive motion of a ship. It can be more like a car negotiating stop-and-go traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Overnight trains are pretty common in India. There are also a few trains with quite amazing service (at least back when I took them): the Rajadhani Express between Delhi to Mumbai was fast, comfortable and had some excellent food options. I would often gaze outside at the verdant countryside as we zipped by... Incidentally, being bored in trains was what got me into reading a lot. At first, it would be comic books. Later, I graduated to books without pictures.

I guess I didn't realize until just now how much being bored on trains influenced my life. If I didn't pick up a habit of reading for pleasure then, I don't think I would have made as much progress in life as I have.

<comment><USER12> I still take overnight trains sometimes and finish complete books, not thick ones though, and write more often in my diary.

Have you ever taken one of the few trains that run on Green Route[1] stretch? That region is pure nature, pure bliss. I have also trekked and camped in the area back in the day when it was allowed.

Unfortunately those trains are too crowded now, and it's nosier, people interact with each other a lot less now - on mobiles or listening to music or watching something on the laptop or phone. Speed remains almost the same. Crowd killed it for me, I could live with the slow speeds.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Route](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Route)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I took an Amtrak from Philly to Orlando. It was 24 hours. We got the sleeper car. It was really great, honestly. Very relaxing. Downside it was expensive: $700 round trip. It did include 3 meals each way though.

<comment><USER14> Is that the Auto-Train, where you can take your car along?

<comment><USER15> Nope, Auto-Train is Virginia to Florida.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Weird headline: Why would it matter that the night train is slow? You start at 8 pm - 10 pm and arrive at 7 am - 9 am, of course the average speed is low. So what?

The alternative would be paying a hotel, getting up at 4 am, getting to the airport, taking a 1 - 2 hour flight and arriving to the city a bit later than with the night train. But it was a fast flight...

<comment><USER17> Not a wierd headline at all. If you read the article you will find that your point is precisely part of the whole point of the Nightjet concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I took the Nightjet a couple of months ago because I love sleeping on American trains. The Nightjet was awful. The mattress was thin and uncomfortable and the electric power cut out every time the train stopped (which was often). Since I use a CPAP, this meant I never got any sleep. Electricity has always been reliable for me on Amtrak.

</comment><comment><USER19> VIA Rail in Canada ran such a train between Toronto and Montreal starting in early 2000. It was cancelled due to lack of ridership in 2005. The trains left Toronto and Montreal at 11:30pm and arrived in Montreal at 8:00am and Toronto at 8:20am, stopping along the way to kill time since the trip is usually about 5 hours.

Maybe it's the right time to bring it back.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_(Via_Rail_train)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_\(Via_Rail_train\))

</comment><comment><USER20> This service sounds exciting. My girlfriend and I like flying in and out of Brussels from the U.S., so we look forward to using it.

Last month we took an overnight train from Bucharest (Sinaia) to Budapest. We enjoyed the ride very much, and less than $100 each for a private cabin seemed like quite a bargain. If you have a little time to spare, and prefer to experience the journey rather than simply get from point A to B, travel by train is the way to go.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've caught the ÖBB Nightjet a few times, and it's been great.

The only thing is, if you aren't getting off at the final stop, you gotta pay attention so that you don't miss your stop (they don't make announcements on the Nightjet, as far as I could tell, except for the final stop). For me, that meant I didn't sleep so well. But the time I was going all the way to the end, it was a great way to travel.

<comment><USER22> The ÖBB personel always woke me up when I had to leave to train before end station in the night. If it was in the morning I even got breakfast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> [http://archive.md/CSGvd](http://archive.md/CSGvd)

</comment><comment><USER24> I went twice on a train trip, used the Nightjet multiple times (and some other night trains). Wonderful experience !

</comment><comment><USER25> This would be nice along the American coasts. There are day trips I resist taking because I don't want to spend a single night in a hotel before an early flight or train. Being able to leave in the afternoon, take a dinner meeting, and then night train home would be perfect.

<comment><USER15> Amtrak has several coastal overnight routes with room options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Funny, I just took the night jet to get to my Christmas destination. We decided that the hassle of getting a toddler on a plane was much more work, and even driving requires frequent breaks. The train was pleasant, although the quality of sleep is like camping.

</comment><comment><USER27> Proposed musical accompaniment: Public Service Broadcasting's "Night Mail" [https://youtu.be/WFJPYi3JXw4](https://youtu.be/WFJPYi3JXw4)

</comment><comment><USER28> Anyone here tried couchsurfing.com? Is it really free to stay over in that community?

<comment><USER29> There's no money involved, but it's not intended as just a place to sleep for free. It's a hospitality exchange; someone will host you, in exchange for the opportunity to meet a new person they find interesting or want to help out.

Sadly, once the organization changed years ago, it became some bizarre money making scheme for the owners. They employ a small staff and generally try to keep the lights on, but they've never really responded to user complaints about the changed functionality. The end result is the community ran screaming to Facebook Groups (where they are basically disconnected social groups that only locals know about) which basically gutted the real online community, so now single dudes trying to get laid are the most common hosts, and new surfers don't understand that it's not a free Airbnb. It's still active for hosting/surfing, it's just less useful now.

<comment><USER30> > _There 's no money involved, but it's not intended as just a place to sleep > for free. It's a hospitality exchange; someone will host you, in exchange > for the opportunity to meet a new person they find interesting or want to > help out._

That wasn't the case with couchsurfing.com when I was involved (back in 2006-2012 or so). We had many hosts who just gave us the keys and weren't even staying at the same place, and others who left us totally on our own in part of their house. A few we've chatted or had a meal together during our stay, but it wasn't about the hospitality and it was totally whether you wanted or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Warning: long and without a conclusion. TLDR: I like overnight trains because they sometimes fit my schedule perfectly and the experience can be awesome.

This really made me want to take a trip to see my dad. My father lives ~600km away from me; whenever I go visit, I tend to stay for a weekend so I don't miss work and I have the choice between driving, train or plane. I take the train most of the time, my friends and family give me a hard time for it all the time because it's more expensive and takes a longer time.

# Driving / bus ($)

We have horrible roads, terrible drivers and it would take me around 7.5 - <USER2> hours to do this. The bus needs to stop for toilet breaks, in multiple cities so it's probably a cramped 9.5-hour road. Also driving myself, leaving Friday after work would render me useless the next day and then Sunday I'd have to come back.

# Train ($$$)

Leaves Friday at ~20:30 (8:30PM) and arrives Saturday morning at ~07:00. That's 10 hours of journey BUT, I go to the train station at around 20:00, I eat something, usually get a bottle of wine and hop on the train.

There, I usually get a single cabin ( also went with 2 people in the cabin, with 4 people and even with 6! just for the adventure ) with a private shower and toilet inside. I take a quick shower because I usually go straight from work, I then kinda chill and enjoy the landscape, open up the wine, start reading a good book and really by midnight, the gentle rocking of the train and the moonlit mountains knock me out. Maybe the wine also.

In the morning, a knock on my door usually 30 min before arriving at the station, it's the steward bringing me a sandwich, coffee/tea, and water and letting me know we're about to arrive. From there, I walk to my dad's house (it's around a 15-minute walk) and there I am ready to hang out Saturday the whole day and Sunday up until ~20:30 again when I leave for home.

In the morning, I take a shower, eat breakfast at the train station and head off to work.

# Plane ($$)

If I don't go to work Friday and Monday, I choose this option, alas I don't like wasting two days of vacation for a two-day weekend stay so I rarely do this. If I go I either go for a full week or just the weekend.

So, the plane leaves Saturday at 06:45... that means I need to be at the airport at 5:30, which means I need to leave my house at 04:00. This means that Friday, I get home, pack and of course try to sleep until around 03:00 and can't and when I finally sleep the alarm goes off.

I usually get an overpriced bottle of water and because the distance is so small, I can't really get any good sleep so it's around an hour cramped up trying to somehow sleep. After this wonderful time, I arrive but wait, my father lives in another city with no airport, so the closest airport is 90 minutes driving. He needs to also wake up on a Saturday at 06:00 to come to pick me up.

Once I get there, it's all fine and nice, we talk and laugh but when I get home I can't help crashing. That means I wake up somewhere afternoon, groggy and go eat something with my dad and catch up. Then I usually get tired in the evening and I kinda need to go catch some shut-eye because Sunday morning at 06:45 the plane flies back home. This time I sleep no problem, but we still need to wake up early as hell, and then I get worried for my dad when he drives back.

Note that in this case, the plane is cheaper than the train, it's because I usually go in a single cabin luxury 1st class (lol, it's really not as fancy as it sounds, here are three pictures from the last time I went[0]).

Paying a grand total of ~110€ vs the cheaper ~30€ flight to get there and back and spending more time on the road might seem dumb, but I think, in this case, it's really worth it. The cheapest way to get there and back by train, in a sleeping cart is also around 30€.

[0] [https://imgur.com/a/dquwwJF](https://imgur.com/a/dquwwJF) \- note the two beds, that's the double cabin. What they do when you get a single, you still get the double beds, but no bunkmate :(

<comment><USER32> I'm curious which country,a broad to and from and which transport company, Thanks!</comment></comment>


Tim Cook is now required to fly on private jets only - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/27/tim-cook-payout-2017-apple-proxy/ <comment><USER2> Insert snarky comment about the reliability of airplanes vs apple software here...

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not trolling and I'm sure he's a decent guy, but I wonder what he does that is so special they have made this rule, Apple makes great products but has not really been that innovative since Steve Jobs left.

<comment><USER4> Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, one of the biggest and most well-known companies in the world.

<comment><USER5> Biggest public company by market capitalization, and by profit. 9th biggest by revenue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Will he still lecture the common person about global warming ?

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim- cook...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate- change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares)

I find it supremely hypocritical when the super rich lecture people about their electricity usage when they use an order of magnitude more.

<comment><USER7> I don't remember Tim Cook giving me any lectures on my personal use of fossil fuels. Yes, he probably mentions global warming as a problem Apple takes serious, and works to mitigate. But it's not like he's shaming anyone, is he?

And even if, it'd be intellectually lazy to complain about his travels in such a superficial way. With the attention he can command, private jet travel would probably be beneficial for the environment if it allows him to attend three events per day instead of two.

But the article cites security reasons for the change in policy. I have no knowledge to verify, and neither does anyone else outside of Apple and possibly the government. It also seems within the bounds of possibilities, so the usual policy of assuming good faith should apply.

Regarding your last line, I'll say (a) he deserves all the private jet travel in the world if he manages to run them on electricity.

Oh, and also this: "Tim Cook has already said that he will be giving away the majority of his fortune during his lifetime in a systematic approach to philanthropy."</comment></comment>


The Complete Guide to HTTP/2 with HAProxy and Nginx - <AUTHOR> http://m12.io/blog/http-2-with-haproxy-and-nginx-guide <comment><USER2> This feels overly complex. The tutorial lets HAProxy do the SSL and Nginx the HTTP/2 (without SSL). But Nginx is still set up for HTTPS (that will never be used). Especially since Nginx can perfectly do both. You might as well replace the HAProxy server you're using with just another Nginx server (with OpenSSL 1.0.2 statically linked) and remove the SSL steps from your application server configuration. It reduces the amount of 'different' technologies and configuration standards you have to keep up with and gives you more flexibility.

What we do internally where I work is the following: our application servers all listen only on a secure internal network and accept incoming connections only from our 'gateway' server. All simple HTTP over port 80. The 'gateway' servers run just Nginx and nothing else. They staple SSL and HTTP/2 on top of the forwarded requests to application servers.

Since our gateway servers are stateless and behind a floating IP we can easily swap them out. And because their task is simple we can take more risks with those servers (cutting-edge things needed for HTTP/2). Currently our gateway servers all run Debian Stretch (unstable) since we get Nginx with OpenSSL 1.0.2 for free. Our application servers run whatever stable software they require.

A simplified but functional version of our Nginx configuration: [https://gist.github.com/Ambroos/1552515b0dd2b755fe1a](https://gist.github.com/Ambroos/1552515b0dd2b755fe1a)

<comment><USER3> And the nginx ssl config is improperly configured, which would give an F under ssllab's tests.

<comment><USER4> Since when some random website on the internet dictates "proper" configuration of TLS?

Hint: "A+" will make sure a lot of old clients which do not support fancy new encryption schemes will not get your content. If you don't care about that, it's fine, but do not call that "improper". It simply isnt.

<comment><USER2> With the Mozilla Intermediate configuration you lose clients that use IE on Windows XP and Android 2.3. We mostly target a Belgian audience, where those users pretty much don't exist anymore.

And still, we don't even target those browsers with our development anymore. Early this year we decided that supporting anything older than IE11 / latest Chrome / Firefox ESR / latest Safari just isn't worth it, so we don't do that anymore either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For simple setups Caddy [1] is great. It supports HTTP/2 out of the box, and even provisions the certs for you from LE automagically. The defaults are much saner than nginx.

[1] [https://caddyserver.com/](https://caddyserver.com/)

<comment><USER6> +1, I love the simplicity of Caddy Server! Just a few lines of configuration and you've got a reverse proxy with SSL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Any suggestions for setting up HTTP2 push with Nginx? Or do we just have to wait for official support?

</comment><comment><USER8> I selfishly wish the tutorial could cover HTTPS configuration with LetsEncrypt. Nicely done though.

<comment><USER9> I took a stab at building from it source on Ubuntu 14.04 + LetsEncrypt for an experimental site (i.e follow the config best practices mentioned elsewhere here).

[https://www.clay.fail/posts/ubuntu-http2-in-mere- hours/](https://www.clay.fail/posts/ubuntu-http2-in-mere-hours/)</comment></comment>


New quantum-dot spectrometer is small enough to function within a smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/quantum-dot-spectrometer-smartphone-0701 <comment><USER2> It's a way to build a multispectral imager out of a CCD imager, with lots of different narrow-band filters over different pixels. Humans have 3 color sensors; some birds have 22, which helps in recognizing specific plants. This is more useful if it extends outside the human visual range, into IR and UV.

Applications are somewhat limited. It's useful for forensics [1], farming (weed and sick plant identification)[2], and some kinds of industrial inspection. For farmers, it's more useful on a drone than on a smartphone; they can fly over the fields and look for trouble spots.

[1] [http://www.beneaththewaves.net/Photography/Uses_of_Multispec...](http://www.beneaththewaves.net/Photography/Uses_of_Multispectral_Photography.html) [2] [http://www.marcusuav.com/using-multispectral-cameras-with- sm...](http://www.marcusuav.com/using-multispectral-cameras-with-small-uavs- for-precision-agriculture/)

</comment><comment><USER3> To those who are more familiar with spectrometers:

What's the most interesting "consumerish" application that you can think of for a spectrometer? I imagine health related applications are an easy target because spectrometers are already widely used in biology. Are there other, more off the wall applications that don't make sense now, given the cost and size of a spectrometer?

<comment><USER4> Depending on how good the specm is, just about as many uses as a camera. What's this leaf? Whats this red stuff? What kinda soil and I standing on? What is the air pollution like today? Is this bleach? Is that really gold? What is this IC made of? What is my baby's heart rate, does she have the flu? What grade of steel is this wrench? How old is this picture of gram? How new is this gasket? Is this chicken what I have, or fish (from the lips of Mrs. Lachey (nee Simpson) herself)?

It's mostly what questions as to materials, depending on how good the specm is. Combine this with your phone's camera for other optical measurements (IR, size, shape, position, etc), some gps data, maybe some tracking of your amazon history, and you have a device that might be able to tell you what anything ever seen is to reasonable certainty. There is without any doubt, a large market for that.

<comment><USER5> _Depending on how good the specm is..._

The article says that besides being small it's also high bandwidth and high resolution. Not sure how many distinct things you can identify based on spectral analysis alone, but I have high hopes for one day owning a Tricorder like device. Being able to fingerprint and identify real world stuff we might ingest seems huge, am I drinking Coke or Diet Coke? Vodka or Gin?

<comment><USER6> > am I drinking Coke or Diet Coke? Vodka or Gin?

Society didn't take MyVessyl.com really well.

<comment><USER5> Your friends might roll their eyes at you putting Soylent in your Vessyl and monitoring your daily caloric intake on your Apple Watch either, but nerds want what they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd like a better understanding of why this is better than an ordinary RGB camera sensor by itself, at least as far as visible light is concerned. What would be an example of a wavelength that couldn't be disambiguated from some other wavelength by looking at its relative amplitude through R, G, and B filters? What do the extra degrees of freedom afforded by the quantum dot filters buy us? Could adding a fourth color filter to some of the elements in a CCD sensor accomplish the same thing?

Is it just a matter of the line width of a typical color filter being too broad?

<comment><USER8> RGB camera sensors can't identify specific wavelengths, all they can tell you is that a given wavelength is in some specific range. And when the light is not monochromatic then it becomes impossible to determine the spectral pattern.

<comment><USER9> I think these sensors implement n color vision, working a lot like the ear does. Instead of just detecting three colors you detect hundreds of colors. With each dot tuned to a fairly narrow band of light you get good selectivity.

<comment><USER7> Right, I'm just wondering how many discrete sensors you need before you can say you have a "real" monochromator. This scheme appears to work a lot like an RGB sensor, but with more than three filters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One step closer to a real life tricorder.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's the link[1]. We're actually looking for micro UAV compatible hyperspectral cameras that have a significant number of pixels in any one direction.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7558/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7558/full/nature14576.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd like to see these mounted under a car to warn you when you're hitting ice.

A lot of times you can't see it. the roads can be wet and then certain areas start freezing. You slow way down once you start seeing ice patches.

<comment><USER13> Does ice return a different spectrum than liquid water?

<comment><USER14> No, but couple it with thermal imaging and "water, 0C" is ice and "water, >0C" is rain.</comment></comment></comment>


Sandy washed away contingency plans across New York region - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/03/us-storm-sandy-contingency-plans-idUSBRE8A206G20121103 <comment><USER2> What I can't understand - all these companies knew at least 48 hours in advance that the storm and flooding was going to hit them, and that power outages were very likely. Even I knew that in advance, and I'm not even near the area affected.

How come they were still surprised?

Of course, disaster recovery plans need to balance wildly different kinds of disasters, and can't predict everything - but if you know that a flood is coming, what excuses could there be for not looking up (or making up) your flood-plans?

Of course, storing diesel for generators in basement might be better for most scenarios - but if you know that for the next week your risk is power outage+flood, then what prevented you from putting a few barrels of diesel upstairs, while the elevators, pumps, shops and delivery vans were still working as usual?</comment>


Ask HN: What's the story behind Git vs. Mercurial war? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> BitKeeper had been used for the version control requirements of the Linux kernel project. Mackall decided to write a distributed version control system as a replacement for use with the Linux kernel. This project started a few days after another project called Git, initiated by Linus Torvalds with similar aims

Source: wikipedia

Interestingly, both picked negative names. Git: simpleton, contemptible Mercurial: in the sense of fickle

</comment><comment><USER2> [https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Getting-Started-A-Short-Histo...](https://git- scm.com/book/en/v2/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-of-Git)</comment>


Ask HN: Are high performance virtual desktops viable now? - <AUTHOR> The new cloud gaming services (Stadia, xCloud, etc.) demonstrate that we can run computationally demanding graphical applications remotely with acceptable input latency and high visual fidelity. Regular, everyday usage of a PC is much less demanding than running a game, and video of regular desktop usage is much more compressible and less bandwidth hungry than video of a fast-moving game. There's a huge pricing disparity between Stadia (like $5/month with one-time fees for application purchases? Somewhere around there...) and virtual desktop services like amazon workspaces (like $700/mo for a similarly powerful, reserved machine or $22/mo+$2/hr of usage).<p>Do you think we might be moving to a new ultra-thin client structure for personal computing? What are the challenges? <comment><USER2> Something clear from Stadia is that the prices are not real.

You or I could rent a server for games and make a service like Stadia on top of Gcs/Aws/Azure -- but the pricing would be constrained by the factors you mention.

The one time purchase might change things a little -- some of the controller will be bought for Christmas and never played, others will play just a little, so you might be able to pay for 40 hours of gaming or so at market rates.

Google doesn't pay market rates, but it has the opportunity cost of not selling servers to customers that will pay more.

The business doesn't have to work financially for Google since they have "more money than God" and because they might be happy to kneecap EA, Msft and Sony the same way that Xbox was insurance for a home computing transition away from Windows.

Of course there will be a day that the bean counters take a look at how much cash it is bleeding and decide to axe Stadia. Most likely it will be a rounding error for GCS.

<comment><USER3> My guess is also that Stadia didnt actually require much programming to create. It was all about having the excess compute power for GCP along with the already low latency data infrastructure for intra data center communication. Relatively cheap for Google to give it a shot</comment></comment>


The Wall - A Javascript plugin for Mootools - <AUTHOR> http://wall.plasm.it/ <comment><USER2> Some images used here are NSFW</comment>


Future Software Superheroes - It's time for your CodeMontage - <AUTHOR> http://developersforgood.org/post/35212705141/introducingcodemontage

<comment><USER2> $500 fee?!? I don't get it. This is the first time I am hearing about"Developers for Good". Am I missing something? Why would someone pay $500 to solve a problem that will "improve the world"? Has anyone participated in this and can shed some light on why it is worth it?

<comment><AUTHOR> CodeMontage's fee covers the cost of helping you find projects that are right for your level (perhaps you can navigate this on your own, but many people new to development and new to open source struggle with this), facilitating feedback and making sure you get code reviews, and helping you measure your improvement as a coder, not just asking you to volunteer without measuring your impact.

This is the first formal session of CodeMontage, and in the future we plan to make the whole platform and participation much more flexible than formal sessions. Hope that helps!

<comment><USER3> Hrm, are you a non-profit or have you considered that?

It seems odd to pay an unknown entity (you) and then perform a service (write code) all for a very high level idea alone (the good).

I feel for this to work there must be some sort of 'meet in the middle', like a non-profit, where you can actually track what the $500 expense is going to be used for.</comment></comment></comment>


Cracking down on research fraud - <AUTHOR> https://undark.org/2020/07/23/cracking-down-on-research-fraud <comment><USER2> These issues of research fraud come up often, but the root of the problem is a bit more subtle.

In North America at least, biomedical research labs operate largely as fiefdoms of the individual principal investigators (PIs). The actual research work falls almost entirely on the backs of grad students and postdoctoral fellows. The grad students need to generate "good" data in order to graduate, the postdocs need the same in order to gain real employment (with only about 10% gaining faculty positions themselves after many years of postdoctoral training). The PIs need such "productivity" from their trainees in order to gain the funding that keeps the labs going. The PIs themselves face success rates in grant applications that are often 10% or lower and, particularly early in their careers, their job security depends almost entirely on their ability to secure grant funding.

These competitive pressures create enormous incentives for otherwise conscientious people, all the way along the hierarchy described above, to fudge their research data. Research fraud is thus a direct outcome of a fundamentally-broken approach to the structure of research funding.

There are exceptions to that approach, however. The not-for-profit Howard Hughes Research Institute [1], and to an extent the intramural research programs of the NIH [2], offer funding for PIs to do what they do best, without the pressure of competing for scant funds. Coincidentally, some of the best science comes out of these sites.

1: [https://www.hhmi.org/scientists](https://www.hhmi.org/scientists) 2: [https://irp.nih.gov/about-us/what-is-the-irp](https://irp.nih.gov/about- us/what-is-the-irp)

<comment><USER3> The topic of funding is a recurrent one in these types of discussions. There are always more people wanting to do science than what is available in funding. There needs to be a process to allocate resources that takes into account competency for the job. Just granting it at random or equally is probably very very far from optimal if it means that an exceptional PI cannot even do the things to push his/her research to the next level. Research funding is a bit like a command economy in that there are no market forces that can be drawn upon to just sort it naturally, so of course it ends up being especially thorny.

<comment><USER4> > Just granting it at random or equally is probably very very far from optimal > if it means that an exceptional PI cannot even do the things to push his/her > research to the next level.

What does "far from optimal" mean? Let's pretend the allocators are not god- like decision makers (if they are, let's fire all the scientists because our god-like decision makers can do the research for them).

Let's just accept that if we have a large bunch of diverse potential researchers, and limited funding, the best way to get a breakthrough is by funding a random sample of these researchers.

Maybe this sample should be stratified, but it should not be stratified in such a way that it incentives chasing grants (effectively making the grant- allocators the real PIs - with all their flaws and biases systematically driving the process, but without any accountability or management effort on their behalf).

We can't get optimal without unlimited wisdom, and if we had unlimited wisdom we wouldn't need scientists.

<comment><USER5> Why do you need unlimited wisdom to rate the merits of the people?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Estimating from my own reading, 1% of research is fraud and 80% is worthless for other reasons. Numbers vary between fields.

If that's the case, what's the argument for why we should spend time doing something about the 1%? Solving 100% of the 1% wouldn't change the overall situation much.

Possible arguments include:

\- Fixing the 80% is hard, but fixing the 1% is satisfying (to the aggressively conventional-minded, at least.)

\- The 1% is wrong in a more harmful way than the 80%. Perhaps falsifying data is worse than hand-waving conclusions.

So if the maximum upside is 1% of wrong research removed, and the downside is quenching some fraction of the good 19%, it's probably better to leave it alone.

<comment><USER7> I think the disproportionate harm argument is a big deal. A _single_ high- profile case of fraud undermines trust in the entire field, and that's critical to maintain.

<comment><USER8> I don't think that's true. There have been frauds in materials science, but people still trust it. The fields that are untrusted are the ones that are so hard that it's plausible that the conventional wisdom might be wrong even if everyone is honest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The root of the problem is that we allow people with high esteemed credentials to run society. They jumped through a hoop.

"You got straight As at 14 - 18 years old and got into an ivy league school as a result? Here run this venture fund."

"You got a PhD in Economics with a good publication by P-hacking your secret data? Here take a run at the FED with power over the US Economy. Your Phd shows that you are the man for the job."

"You got a PhD in ML by making some incremental improvement on some already existing model and then doing massive hyper parameter tuning? Here, become director of research at this big corporation."

Research will never be fully productive in this system, there are too many people who have too much to gain from gaming the publication system.

<comment><USER10> All three of those examples are missing a step of like 5-20 years in the middle. Nobody is _running_ a venture fund as a 22 year old ivy grad (barring someone who's taking over for their family member, but in that case it has nothing to do with being an ivy grad), nobody is running the FED right out of a PhD, nobody is a director at a big corporation right out of a PhD.

Presumably once those people are in such high-power positions, they also have a track record of real accomplishments behind them; it's certainly possible they've lied and cheated their entire career but it's definitely less likely they'll make it that far that way.

<comment><USER9> Part of the point is that the gap in the middle often doesn't matter. I've hung around the Stanford crowd and as I enter my thirties I am awestruck by the opportunities they have regardless of what they have done since graduation. The credential is almost all that matters, as long as they dont mess up massively.

A common path is:

Graduate Stanford => Work at Mckinsey => Get hired into VC.

Graduate Stanford => Raise 15 Million dollar series A with your buddy => Doesn't matter what happens you will end up rich.

It's not a cynical opinion, I have seen it myself and I am doing very well for myself. I worked under an Economics PhD who was the number one in his class (top 5 phd program) and graduated top of his undergrad at UPenn. His incompetence relative to his credentials shattered my respect for the way that we allocate positions of power

<comment><AUTHOR> I think most people who raise series A and then fail don't get rich. I've certainly known people who raised more than that, couldn't make the business work and then wound up personally bankrupt.

<comment><USER9> Possibly, but when you raise it at 24 or 25 years old it looks extremely impressive and sets you up for upper management at other companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So, some years ago, Temple Grandin wrote a set of standards and McDonald's adopted it and they buy so much beef that it became the de facto new standard for the beef industry. And it's a set of standards that helps beef producers succeed rather than a "gotcha" trying to find who is guilty.

And that's the way you make the world a better place. Not by looking for new and creative ways to nail "bad guys" to the wall after you started from an _assumption of guilt._

I don't like this article. I don't like it at all. My feeling is that it was written as an emotional response to the pandemic and it is getting traction on HN for the exact same reason.

People are stressed out and they are looking for a villain to go after. It won't fix the real problem -- the pandemic -- but that's how people tend to behave in a crisis.

And it's a slippery slope towards a more draconian world. It doesn't make things better.

<comment><USER12> The McDonald's story reminds me of the Brussels effect [0] where legislation in the EU is extending (not by law but in its effect) to other parts of the world because it is easier or cheaper to comply with it for all customers than to treat EU costumers and others differently.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect)

<comment><USER13> So that's why I have to accept cookies all the time.

<comment><USER12> No, this is either because they have no idea what they are doing, or because they like bossing people around in return for not getting their way regarding user data while pretending this behaviour is because of consumer-unfriendly EU regulations.

It's perfectly fine to set cookies that are necessary for providing the service _without_ having to ask the user.

They only need to get one's permission if they want to do other things like selling data to advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A friend of mine was doing a chemistry phd when he discovered his supervisor was falsifying data. If he had blown the whistle it would have ended his career, but if he had played along his dissertation would have been based on false data. Both options were bad so he just quit.

[https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/25/postdocs-grad- students-f...](https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/25/postdocs-grad-students- fraud/)

<comment><USER15> That's some guts to do the right thing. Respect.

<comment><USER16> I was not faced with such a shitty situation, and I probably would have done the same as well, but the right thing would have been to report it.

<comment><USER14> If you report it then the grant money is gone and everybody in the lab loses their job and all the PhD students are derailed.

<comment><USER17> That's the fault of the person falsifying data, not the person reporting the fraud.

<comment><USER18> Yeah but it still happens, and to people you care about who didn't deserve it.

<comment><USER19> That's true. Several people will probably lose their jobs.

But that is the kind of thinking that condemns whistleblowing for the wrong reasons. To put it differently, people rather prefer to keep on pretending if that keeps their jobs than to do the right thing. And that makes everyone a fraudster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd argue that a lot of what the authors describe isn't actually "fraud", it's more exploitation of an intentionally broken system.

I've definitely had authors on my papers who didn't do work. I've definitely written papers for people who didn't do work. I've definitely done peer reviews on behalf of PIs. Why do people do this? Because the regulators allow it and they want the system that way. Why should who wrote the paper have any impact on review? Why should it matter who the journal editors are? Why should it matter where the paper is from? Etc...

<comment><USER21> Because we use heuristics instead of actual analysis.

How many people citing a paper or reading it actually have time to think that deeply about it?

The alternative to a world of trust and heuristics is a world where we are all bogged down trying to make decisions.

This is heavily demonstrated in recruiting. Resume reading is about 7 seconds a person. How long would it take if they spent a minute for each?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting notes from the paper mentioned in the article: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/174701611989840...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1747016119898400)

\- "only 39 scientists from 7 countries have been subject to criminal sanctions between 1979 and 2015 (Oransky and Abritis, 2017)" That seems...very low.

\- "The Retraction Watch database—the largest of its kind—currently includes more than 18,500 retracted articles (Retraction Watch database, 2019). A recent analysis of 10,500 retracted papers up to 2016 showed that 0.04% of papers are retracted." This is once again a lower-bound; presumably if you account for additional authors and p-hacking the numbers go up a lot.

Pushing for replication and improved methodology can help, but some of these issues seem to be related to scale. There are many more people outputting papers than there are people willing to vet them (outside of peer review). Furthermore, when you have many people researching hot fields, you should expect false positives and overestimates to dominate published results, even when everyone is trying to practice good statistical hygiene. ([https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124))

</comment><comment><USER23> Basic set of checks-and-balances:

* Preregistration and adoption of open science practices

* Public access to research results, methods, and data, with some exceptions (such as PII)

* Federally-funded universities can't use NDAs or non-disparage agreements

* Federally-funded universities must respond to records requests under terms similar to FOIA (note that FOIA has requestor pay costs)

* Federally-funded universities must adopt transparent governance

* Salary caps at federally-funded universities and affiliated organizations

* Conflict-of-interest laws with hard enforcement

* Federally-funded universities must publicly publish research misconduct and alleged research misconduct. The latter is tricky, since you don't want to smear the researcher without proof, but you also don't want to trust results.

This really needs reform.

<comment><USER24> Salary caps? So the best people go into the private sector where they can actually get paid?

<comment><USER25> Agree, I don't think salary caps have much to do with the poor alignment of incentives under discussion here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've read that before 2003, the whole of humanity has published as many scientific papers as from 2003 to 2016.

So what happened around 2000? Who has turned the scientific mission into a blind competition for superficial metrics? So many people in science I meet (apart from the few who benefited from this system, and therefore were selected by it) are frustrated by publishing for the sake of publishing (not science) and the bad incentives this system creates.

Who has thought that these superficial metrics would improve anything about science and why?

<comment><USER27> With any exponential growth curve, you can point to some semi-recent point on the curve and say 50% is on the right side of that point. If the population is growing exponentially (it is), and the percentage of the population in academia is consistent or growing (that I'm not sure), then you could reasonably expect the quantity of research to be growing exponentially as well. Maybe it's just a curve with a doubling period of 13 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think one of the big things that you can do is split up the data gathering and data analysis.

Kind of like we don't trust the companies to audit themselves, instead we have an outside firm.

In this model, a researcher would create a hypothesis and collect the data. Their team would write the background and methods sections of the paper.

Then the entirety of raw data would be sent off to a third party for data analysis and they would write the results part of the paper.

The original team would then write the discussion part discussing the implications of the study.

All papers would be required to be made public.

The idea is that there would be specialized firms that do the analysis on the raw data for everyone. These would be carefully audited and certified by the government. They have no incentive to play statistical games. If they get caught cheating, then they have to pay for all the analysis on all the papers to be done again by a competitor and if any errors are found in a paper analysis it is automatically retracted. While the this re-analysis is going on, all papers would be quarantined with a note stating the paper is having its analysis redone. This incentivizes the analysis firm to be ethical, as well as incentivizes researchers to pick ethical analysis firms.

Separating data collection from data analysis would help align incentives better.

<comment><USER20> You would just get people massaging or generating the data to fit a conclusion prior to sending it out for statistical analysis. If people want to cheat they can find a way. The only way to really do what you are getting at is to construct core labs or CROs to run all experiments on behalf of the investigators. This is not infeasible in many cases (and is already done in narrow ways) but it requires hiring staff scientists to run every experiment rather than grad students or post docs and costs / complexity will explode.

The real way to defend against a lot of fraud is to force people to submit actually detailed methods sections so experiments are legitimately reproducible (they largely aren't now). This would catch a lot more fraud quickly, although even this won't fully work as some experiments are simply too costly to reproduce for validation purposes (eg animal studies).

<comment><USER29> This.

And also actually fund researchers who do reproducibility work. May be even fund specialized teams that do only reproducibility work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Research fraud gets a lot of attention because it is so black and white. But it is a symptom of larger problems. One issue is that the pace of progress is slowing, and as a result incremental gains are more prominent. This is fertile ground for fraudsters, as they can produce results which are plausible enough while seeming to be an important contribution to the field. All fraud fits into this category. Nobody makes a new grand unified theory of everything which they know is bogus. That would be too much work for a start.

The other issue is the huge expansion in university size. Most of the fraud I've seen or heard about all happens in university research departments. This shows you the importance of their incentive structure. One can make things up and not only succeed, but do better than your competitors in this research setting, AND get a tenured position with life-long security. All competitive fields where achievement recieves external and highly persistent rewards suffer from this problem, whether it be sport and performance enhancing drugs or Ivy league univesrity admissions or even venture captial funding (Theranos).

The natural response is to ask for more regulation and structural change in how research is conducted eg pre-registration, different statistical standards etc. But this has the major disadvantage of making life harder for the honest people. It also requires the creation of some parallel work force to handle all the checking. Research is already so difficult. Paradoxical effects, where such measures increase fraud, are definitely possible.

There will never be zero fraud. The aim should be to change how research is done to make the experience more humane, train and mentor young scientists carefully and avoid perverse incentives. As far as I can tell, nobody has any idea how to do this. Instead they want to create investigatory bodies which will siphon off money that could be used for research, and then ruin lives pursuing some key performance indicator like N successful fraud cases per quarter. This experiment was already run in the USA with the Office of Research Integrity, and it failed. Malcolm Gladwell, who I am not a fan of in general, has a good podcast about it [1].

[1] [http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/28-the-imaginary- crim...](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/28-the-imaginary-crimes-of- margit-hamosh)

</comment><comment><USER31> Bluntly put, peer review is an overwhelming, unpaid, unsatisfying, time- expensive task. The only step forward is to force the release of both data and implementation, at least for the highest ranked journals, this possibly opening more unpredictable cans of worms. It is the elitist academy model on one side, not working any more, against the democratisation of research, still and just a torrential flow of noise.

</comment><comment><USER32> You can't really improve this until the lead author doesn't have a final say on how to treat outliers.

In any given study, there are going to be hundreds of special cases in the data that you didn't anticipate, and you have to decide whether to include or exclude them.

Any researcher will subconsciously be more sympathetic to arguments to exclude subjects that go against the principal theory, and less so to subjects that confirm it.

And it's a battle of reasonable arguments, most of the cases aren't bright line fraud or misconduct, they're just humans finding some arguments more compelling and the impossibility of escaping our own biases. (And yes, sometimes it's fraud, but fraud is just the tip of the iceberg if we're talking about genuinely improving the reliability of scientific findings.)

Prepublication is helpful, but more and more I'm convinced that the only way to do proper science would be to completely disaggregate study design from study execution.

</comment><comment><USER33> Similar to research fraud, I want the medical field examined for anti-science fraud.

I caught my Physician recommending an expensive and dangerous surgery that could be done by a dentist or surgeon. I asked if there was data, she said yes. There was no data. And the trend was using lasers rather than surgery since it's safer. I confronted her and she said-

"If you ask a physician, they will recommend a physician. If you ask a dentist, they will recommend a dentist."

This physician used factionalism rather than science.

I imagine this has happened on a massive scale.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think there is outright fraud and subtle fraud.

For instance, most mouse studies specifically as it relates to aging, drug safety, and cancer research should be thrown out. This is well covered here:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCzZp1J0v0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCzZp1J0v0)

That's not the only issue, but it's a known issue, everyone is ignoring as it relates to all studies with the most common mice

<comment><USER30> This Weinstein mouse model thing is blown completely out of proportion, and is only so prominent because his own brother Eric put it on The Portal.

The point is that everyone knows mouse models are imperfect, but they are still useful. Pointing out one of the ways they are imperfect is fine. Pretending this is a nobel prize winning earth shattering discovery that is suppressed by the establishment is just annoying. Research about how mouse models are imperfect comes out all the time, eg there was a paper about how the relatively sterile lab environment changes the murine microbiome and immune system. Why aren't these researchers on Joe Rogan's podcast?

<comment><USER35> He specifically mentions comments like yours are not helpful. This is the researcher fraud that is the problem in science that we are talking about, issues at hand are ignored or twisted so the paper mill can continue.

The concept is all mice in the USA come from one laboratory and have a common attribute that's different from wild mice and European suppliers.

And it's spelt out how in theory this different attribute could change medical results.

To come back with we don't care, without proof it's not a issue, is a deeply broken system, but is exactly how current universities work.

Here's the actual segment (18 mins) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo)

Related (12 mins) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygLNOt43So](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygLNOt43So)

<comment><USER30> I've heard everything he said. I'm well aware of the concept. Again, everyone knows that all mice come from the same place (because it's written in the papers), and that they are very different to wild mice or mice from elsewhere.

I also didn't say we don't have proof that it is a problem. Again, all models are imperfect, but some are useful.

I am telling you what I see as the significance of Weinstein's findings as someone that works in the field.

It is nonsesnical to me that this particular concept is suddenly so prominent because of Joe Rogan, whereas a multitude of other issues with research and human translation are not talked about at all. To me what this is really about is Weinstein's perception of the significance of his findings. He, like a lot of scientists, thinks his work is hugely important and he deserves more credit. Others do not. This happens all the time. The only difference is that he has found a way to disseminate his findings to a non-specialist audience.

<comment><USER35> You are still saying what Weinstein said you would say.

Weinstein has laid out a case. It theoretically makes sense. It is quantifiable. He makes a good argument it is massively significant. If confirmed it is fixable. If confirmed it means things in other fields.

This is in pop culture, anyone researching with mice should have heard of it, so the fact no one can whip out an article disputing it says a lot.

Science is broken and scientists are not to be trusted. I think this is a good test case how science deals with this and if it can actually move forward. It needs a good rebuttal to address the issue.

<comment><USER30> I don't think you are listening to me. I am not disputing his point. I think it could well be valid and is certainly plausible. The idea is pretty clever. Attempts should be made to understand it more and minimise the effect. Great, add it to the list of problems with mouse models. It certainly isn't at the top.

<comment><USER35> Honestly, the video only 18 mins (9 mins at 2X) long. Just give it a watch.

He says it's the top. He explains why it is the top. It is logical and well thought out with theoretical and practical evidence it is the top.

I'm happy to consider it's not the top.

But you have to actually say what is at the top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've seen lots of "questionable" research, so much, that I rarely read papers published by other researchers because chances are the data is junk, and I'm in academic biomedical research!!

</comment><comment><USER37> Makes me think of Hans Lehrach. Dunno why

[https://www.molgen.mpg.de/hans-lehrach](https://www.molgen.mpg.de/hans- lehrach)

</comment><comment><USER38> Everything in [AtOmXpLuS]([https://www.atomxplus.com](https://www.atomxplus.com))

</comment><comment><USER39> Starting to think it's time to close down the university system and start a new one...

<comment><USER40> Sure, but how would you organize the new one?

<comment><USER39> I'd just hope new alternatives would emerge as the old system gets out of the way.

Then we'll see what develops.

Not a selling argument, I know :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Coincidence for me to see this here, as a book by Dr. Stuart Ritchie was just published about this very thing.

[https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fictions-Negligence- Undermine...](https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fictions-Negligence-Undermine- Search/dp/1250222699)

</comment><comment><USER42> Certain groups have been serious the replication crisis for 10-15y, but academic culture at large is simply not cut out to discuss fraud in a 'street epistemology' sort of way, such as the way security researchers might discuss cybercrime.

There's a wild amount of pushback to any amount of meta-criticism. But once you get past that point, many roadblocks remain.

In particular, there's extreme bias for meta-statistical methodologies that infer QRPs over other methods of investigation. Often, these methods aren't strictly necessary in context, and afford the opportunity to turn the metasci discourse into endless bikeshedding about the meta-framework rather than the object of dispute.

Many interested parties will participate/perform in this discourse, but few will sit down and really _look at_ things as simple as the logical structure of the paper's claims, or even simpler problems with its content.

In the case of social psych, for instance, many problems lie with (a) stimuli and (b) unexamined assumptions on the part of the researchers that a certain manipulation holds, so these are important to assess. But extending critique to these things is seen as "reviewer 2" behavior — uncollegial, unfair, sniping, waaah etc.

Since "researcher x produces bad research, but evidence of fraud is only circumstantial" isn't sufficient grounds for doing much of anything, little comes of these efforts. When an investigation _does_ nail a fraudster to the wall, well, so? The papers remain, the poisoned citation tree remains, the culture remains.

More than anything, the pushback in the form of tone-policing is what gets me. "Methodological terrorism" this, "reviewer 2" that. It shows how far from consequences the gatekeepers are. If you're a young person, whole branches of the academy have been pre-bankrupted for you. There's no hope there, short of a research path that manages to avoid citing any prior literature. But don't get tetchy with the grantlords!

Meanwhile, all around the US, real effects of this dogshit excuse for scientific inquiry can be seen every single day. Police departments are adopting new policies around known-bad implicit bias papers. These won't work. _We know they won 't work. We've known this for years._

What would make it stop? Every time cops kill an unarmed person, academics who still haven't retracted their implicit bias papers get fined?

There's the rub. You can't do much to force the point. Effective, timely measures would be fairly brutal ones, and academics aren't ready to admit this to themselves. In some ways, COVID-19 may end up being one of those measures, though it will disproportionately affect younger researchers.

</comment><comment><USER43> Equalize the field, radically remove research hierarchies. Liberate research funding from pointless bureaucracies and 4-year grants and instead pay scientists to work on whatever they like most. Let science be fun again

I always return to this article from David Hubel (of Hubel&Wiesel): [https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(09)00733-8](https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273\(09\)00733-8)

 _I arrived at his lab around noon and found him working alone, recording from an anesthetized macaque monkey. I asked him when he had started the experiment, and he answered "in the morning", which I finally realized was the morning of the day before. So he had worked, by himself, all the day before, all that night, and that day until noon. What was typical, in that era, was not only the long hours but the fact that the project was done by one person, single handedly. The major papers were either by Mountcastle alone or in partnership with one other person. The leader of the physiology department was Philip Bard, but the idea that Bard should have asked to have his name on any of Vernon 's papers surely never occurred to anyone._

<comment><USER44> > Liberate research funding from pointless bureaucracies and 4-year grants and > instead pay scientists to work on whatever they like most.

Bureaucracy exists to ensure that funds are indeed spent on research instead of jet skis and shiny toys, and hierarchies are established to focus work on specialized topics pertaining to the state of the art of a field of research.

All your suggestions do is ensure that less funds are spent on research, and the few work that is performed cannot be any form of deep dive or continuous effort on a topic, thus resulting only in low-hanging fruits.

And by the way, the minute a researcher complains he needs help with his research is the moment you get a hierarchy.

<comment><USER43> bureaucracy cannot guarantee the quality of research beyond the jet ski bar

hierarchies are established to ensure that the PI gets citations from the work of postdocs and postgrads

typical grants encourage shallow trend-chasing or incremental continuation of the research of - often disinterested - senior PIs who simply get grants because they have gotten a lot of grants.

The chase of the state of the art is just another incremental step - that 's shallow

a research partner is not necessarily a subordinate</comment></comment></comment>


E-book prices may rise as VAT law kicks in - <AUTHOR> http://thebookseller.com/news/e-book-prices-may-rise-vat-law-kicks

<comment><USER2> One consequence of that same (afaik) law is that it's becoming increasingly fun to run a SaaS from EU.

Hand-picked links:

\- [http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/tax...](http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/telecom/explanatory_notes_2015_en.pdf)

\- [https://docs.recurly.com/eu-vat-2015](https://docs.recurly.com/eu- vat-2015)

\- [http://theaccountancycloud.co.uk/vat-rules-on-digital- servic...](http://theaccountancycloud.co.uk/vat-rules-on-digital-service- businesses/)

<comment><USER3> Yep, it's a mess that's going to backfire. I'm taking the step of blocking all non-UK EU countries from purchasing. It sucks, but it's the only way I can keep my tiny little bootstrapped company afloat without having a heck of a lot of extra paperwork and filings to do (with commensurate fines if I screw it up).

<comment><USER2> For my SaaS ([https://www.wisecashhq.com](https://www.wisecashhq.com)) I plan to handle it as well as I can (I'm based in France). The plan is first to get to fully understand what needs to be done from my country, then try to sign for a "MOSS" (mini one stop shop).

I agree this looks like a major PITA, but luckily Recurly (which I picked for my billing code) seems to have this supported (did not test yet, though).

That said I do feel your pain. I feel a bit of fatigue with regards to the increasing challenges that bootstrappers (amongst others) face (eg: cookie law, vat).

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I don't know whether France has a similar exemption, but in the UK currently I do not have to track or even charge VAT until the company has £81k in revenue. I don't even have to register for it. This is really handy for turning a side-project into a small company, as I can just try out various revenue streams without too much bureaucracy.

Once I hit £81k of course, I can probably afford to throw money at accountants to take care of it for me! But that critical first bootstrapping stage has become just that little bit more difficult. It's either block the rest of the EU, or get ready to do some paperwork. Or I guess I could become a zero- revenue startup! ;)

<comment><USER4> You need to take a view regarding the type of expenses your company will have too. I run a small, one man, UK Limited company and was for a time VAT registered. This is because when I first started the company I spent a few thousand Pounds on equipment. All the VAT I paid on this equipment was able to be offset against any VAT I collected through invoicing. For a while I was ahead and it helped my cash flow, even factoring in the accountancy bills each quarter (which weren't really all that much). I made this move on advice from my accountant, and at the appropriate time, when I was no longer "ahead" on VAT, I was advised to de-register for VAT. My revenues still aren't £81k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is definitely a retrograde step, especially in countries such as the Republic of Ireland, where paper books are generally ascribed a 0% VAT rate. That doesn't protect us in regard to e-books however, as the specific legislative text refers to "printed matter", and defines some criteria that prevent e-books from taking advantage of this provision. There is also a clause in the relevant legislation that deals more specifically with "printed matter" that is purchased and downloaded via the internet, and states that it is "considered to be a service" and therefore liable to VAT at the standard rate.

Ref: [http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/printing-and- print...](http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/printing-and-printed- matter.html)

I've written the usual letters to government ministers and to members of the European Parliament, but have been completely ignored in all cases, not unexpectedly. Unfortunately, I feel that this is going to be another measure pushed through the EP without any public consultation.

<comment><USER6> It's up to member states to pass laws that exempt e-books from VAT.

Frankly Amazon, Google and the like have taken the piss by using Luxembourg as a tax haven for too long. It's right that VAT is charged in the consumers country.

<comment><USER7> So legally minimizing a tax bill by selecting an optimum location and passing some of that advantage onto customers (one of the reasons Amazon is popular) is 'taking the piss'?

<comment><USER6> Shipping from warehouses in the UK to UK consumers whilst completely sidestepping UK VAT charges is taking the piss.

<comment><USER8> is the full VAT tax displayed on the bill for all items purchased? Not being a member of EU or related I do not know how the amount of taxation is conveyed to the buyer so I am a bit curious

<comment><USER9> Advertised prices include VAT for all goods and services aimed at people. The price without VAT isn't usually shown. Goods and services aimed at businesses show prices excluding VAT (since the business doesn't pay it), but they make this clear. International shoppers might see the no-VAT prices on websites, I'm not sure.

This applies to websites and shops. Europeans will often be surprised in American shops that the tax is added on afterwards — I've had the exact change ready and been caught by this.

The line before "Total" on a receipt shows the amount of VAT paid. Many shops will "*" any items had different rates (things like basic food).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is _really_ screwing with the independent publishing sector in the UK right now: go on twitter and look for #VATMOSS. The TL:DR version is that ebooks are VATable and if you sell direct to customers the VAT regs mean that just _one_ ebook sale in _one_ EU country puts you in a world of bookkeeping pain.

A lot of small publishers are basically getting ready to fold their UK-based ebook operations completely at the end of the month. When you sell 10-50 products a month for £2-5 a pop it just isn't worth the hassle. And these are people who refuse to go via Amazon because monopsony. It is to weep.

</comment><comment><USER11> Only if publishers CHOOSE to raise them.

Let's look at the facts:

\- Most paper books are already subject to VAT (90%+).

\- The margins on ebooks are already much higher than paper books (due to reduces production, distribution, storage, returns, and tax costs).

\- The only reason ebooks cost as much as they do is due to lack of competition and the publishers wanting to continue to sell paper books.

So while publishers might try to exploit this opportunity to raise prices on something which already costs too much, let's not pretend that the VAT (which is effectively already built into the price, since they're 1:1 with paper books which DO pay VAT) has anything to do with it.

<comment><USER12> > paper books which DO pay VAT

The article mentions that paper books in the UK are VAT exempt?

<comment><USER5> Part of the problem is that there is no uniform provision across the EU for VAT exemption for books. Some countries charge VAT on paper books, or on e-books, or on both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Forgive my ignorance, but do we pay VAT on anything in the U.S.? Hell, we don't even have sales tax in my state. Why do Europeans put up with it?

<comment><USER14> free healtcare, maintained infrastructure, cheap internet and cops that do not murder people help a lot

<comment><USER15> It's not free if you are taxed for it. We can debate whether a society is better off with it or not, but please don't claim that it is free.

<comment><USER16> Though the point is somewhat moot because _US government_ spends more per capita on public healthcare than the British government does, bizarrely. So while it's not "free" in the UK, Americans get charged twice via taxes _and_ insurance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> ugh that sucks. They're barely cheaper than dead-tree copies as is.</comment>